Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbors. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the Northern Alliance, but were also wary of antagonizing their former master, Russia. Prior to September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USAs invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming again that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

I'd say that the biggest hole in it would be that the US had no reason to attack Afghanistan, and that the country in today's age of air transport is strategically unimportant to hold. It's mineral wealth was pretty much an unknown to the West prior to the 2003 invasion. On top of that, all Afghanistan really did was to distracted from Bush's main objective, Iraq and Saddam.

To suggest that 9/11 was a pretext to invading Afghanistan is just loony toons and can only come from those with zero understanding of history.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

all Afghanistan really did was to distracted from Bush's main objective, Iraq and Saddam.

Correct. According to Richard Clarke, immediately after the 9/11 attacks the administration were looking at ways to attack Iraq. They had to be convinced over several days to attack Afghanistan, in doing so they called it an 'Afghanistan First" policy. Quite literally, Afghanistan got in the way of their goal of invading Iraq.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 2,398

Originally Posted by MrFliop

Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming again that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

I think you are forgetting who it is that is concocting these theories. My experience with 9/11 CT-ists is that they are by-and-large only dimly aware of the existence of countries outside the West, and the US in particular. They are also even less aware that these countries are real, independent entities, with their own self-interest and agendas, and not just passive pawns to be shuffled about in the Illuminati Great Game.

I'd say that the biggest hole in it would be that the US had no reason to attack Afghanistan, and that the country in today's age of air transport is strategically unimportant to hold. It's mineral wealth was pretty much an unknown to the West prior to the 2003 invasion. On top of that, all Afghanistan really did was to distracted from Bush's main objective, Iraq and Saddam.

To suggest that 9/11 was a pretext to invading Afghanistan is just loony toons and can only come from those with zero understanding of history.

In that "New Pearl Harbor" conspiracy video early on in the narrator says there was a plan in place by the Bush Administration to attack Afghanistan and shows a document as proof.

To the twoofies who mindlessly believe whatever they are told, they'll accept this information without questioning it. But to those of us who look closely, we see that the document says "attack Al-quida in Afghanistan." That's vastly different than attacking Afghanistan itself.

Citing this document (forget which one it is but it's early on in the video) is one of the biggest holes in the "attack Afghanistan" theory.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.